There Are People Who Confused Things…

I am one of those who felt (I wrote it in the article concerning the Bonds trial that it was a monstrosity to serve time in jail to any accused for offences arising from the use of steroids.

When I read of the dismissal of all charges against Clemens, I felt relieved, because there was a moment where I figured they wanted to make this man pay for the faults of others. That is an abuse of power, that he should be imprisoned. I do not need to make references pointing to the guilty parties, everyone knows.

However, now I am not certain how everyone will understand things, because there are those who interpreted the legal (judicial) acquittal of the pitcher, as the free way, kind of clearance of all barriers on the road to Cooperstown. This barbarity, with more emphasis, have been proposed for some chroniclers in Spanish. Please gentlemen, Clemens was acquitted of perjury and other charges, but he was not freed from the verdict of the Mitchell Report, according to which Clemens used them. Aat that time, Clemens denied–through his lawyer–usage.

As of today, what is unquestioned, is his use of banned substances and that he has lied or not to Congress. Now, if you are committed to the principles of decency that should govern the selection of players to the temple, then they should be banned. In fact, using steroids–as they have done–is an attempt to deceive history, to play an unfair trick on the game, after all.

I’m going to repeat it, I worried a lot because Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds could be imprisoned for alleged crimes engendered in offices outside the places frequented by them, including the stadiums or any clinics. But facing a problem as stimulating substances, there is a big difference between not deserve prison for using steroids, and being worthy of Cooperstown after they used.

Comments

The prosecution attempted to secure a guilty verdict on the basis of Brian McNamee’s credibility, and they were basically laughed at by the jury. Why should George Mitchell’s “verdict” on the basis of the very same Brian McNamee’s say-so carry any more weight? Roger Clemens may well have used. Perhaps it’s even likely. But it’s certainly not “unquestioned,” because questioning it was exactly what happened. Save me the semantics about Clemens being on trial for lying about his steroid use, not the actual use itself. Unlike Bonds, who attempted to equivocate about knowingly using, Clemens was clear in his denials. Any credible evidence of steroid usage would have equivalently been credible evidence of lying to Congress. That the US Attorney was unable to present credible evidence of Clemens lying is indicative of the fact that there was no credible evidence of Clemens using. If you want to make judgments on the basis of rumor and innuendo, have at it. But don’t pretend you have anything more, because you don’t.